A series of internal State Department emails obtained by Fox News shows some some of the initial assessments of last month's deadly consulate attack in Libya, including one email within hours of the attack that noted that the group Ansar al Sharia had claimed responsibility.

Ansar al Sharia has been declared by the State Department to be a an Al Qaeda-affiliated group. A member of the group suspected of participating in the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi has been arrested and is being held in Tunisia.

The emails obtained by Fox News were sent by the State Department to a variety of national security platforms, whose addresses have been redacted, including the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence.

Fox News was told that an estimated 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. People who received these emails work directly under the nation’s top national security, military and diplomatic officials, Fox News was told.

The timestamps on the emails are all Eastern Time and often include the subheading SBU…which is shorthand for “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

The first email indicates that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and other personnel were “in the compound safe haven.” Officials later discovered that Stevens and three other Americans had died in the attack.

The first email was sent at 4:05 p.m. ET with the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack (SBU).”

“The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack," the email reads. "Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.

"The operations Center will provide updates as available.”

The second email came at 4:54 p.m. ET, with a subject line “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi (SBU)"

“Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site attempting to locate COM personnel.”

The third email came at 6:07 p.m. ET and was sent to a different email list but still includes the White House Situation Room address and a subject line of “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU).”

“Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli," the email reads.

So...what you're saying is, it wasnt a youtube video that was a result of the attack?

I'll just leave this here:

State Department statement on 9/11:

And two weeks later at the United Nations, Obama stated:

So, the question is, why would they state it was a youtube video when it was clearly a terrorist attack? Why blame an American made youtube video for the attack? I dont understand why that would be the basis for their blame. Maybe someone could explain that.

Congressional sources tell Fox News that a top administration counterterrorism official was reprimanded by the White House last month after he testified that the Sept. 11 attack in Libya was terrorism.

The White House and the official are pushing back on the claim. But the allegation would appear to raise questions about recent administration statements that they were labeling the attack terrorism from the start.

Sources told Fox News that, in fact, the White House was unhappy with Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, after his Sept. 19 comments, and told him to tone it down afterward.

Olsen had told a Senate committee, in reference to the four Americans killed in the attack: "They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy."

It was the first time any administration official had publicly and directly labeled the attack terrorism.

Fox News was told Olsen's position was that he was laying out the intelligence as it was currently understood.

The White House, though, denied Olsen was reprimanded.

"This is completely false. The attack in Benghazi was clearly an act of terror, which is why the president referred to it as such three times before this testimony," National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Fox News. He was referring to Obama's statement on Sept. 12, and subsequently, in which he referred to "acts of terror."

A national counterterrorism official told Fox News that Olsen also denied he was reprimanded for his statements.

The claim further complicates the narrative about when the administration came to the conclusion that the attack was terrorism - let alone whether the attack was pre-planned, a matter that is still in dispute.

Before Olsen's Sept. 19 testimony, administration officials had avoided explicitly calling the attack terrorism. Asked about that label just two days earlier, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said: "I don't think we know enough. And we're going to continue to assess ... and then we'll be in a better position to put labels on things, OK?"

The White House on Sept. 20 used the term -- but then Obama, despite having referred to "acts of terror" earlier, declined to use any labels during an interview that same day on Univision.

Nevertheless, administration officials have since claimed Obama was calling the attack terrorism from the start. It was a point of contention during the second presidential debate, when Romney appeared taken aback as the president said: "The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror."

Moderator Candy Crowley backed up the president, though later acknowledging that U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice would later claim the act was a "spontaneous" reaction to a protest over an anti-Islam film.

The dueling public comments in the first two weeks after the attack continue to stir vociferous controversy on Capitol Hill. The latest development is the release of State Department emails that show top administration officials were alerted that a local militant group in Benghazi called Ansar al-Sharia had taken responsibility on Facebook and Twitter for the attack, hours after it happened. The same group later denied responsibility.

The public understanding of when the Obama administration knew, or should have known, the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was terrorism got even muddier Wednesday.

As newly released emails showed a local militant group was on the administration's radar within hours of the attack, CBS News released a quote from a Sept. 12 interview in which President Obama seemed to acknowledge the strike was more than just a protest over an anti-Islam film.

CBS News published the quote online, and it appeared to have aired for the first time on Oct. 19, more than a month after the interview was taped. The video has been available online.

In the interview with "60 Minutes," Obama downplayed the notion the attack was mob violence, as was thought to be the case with a demonstration in Cairo, Egypt.

"You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt, and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start," Obama told CBS News.

On one hand, the comment lines up with the president's Rose Garden remarks that day, when he referred to "acts of terror." However, it also sharply conflicts with what U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice would go on to say four days later on a round of Sunday talk shows, in which she claimed the protest in Cairo helped trigger the "spontaneous" attack in Benghazi.

Newly released State Department emails added to the picture this week, as they showed top officials were alerted to militant group Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi claiming responsibility on Facebook and Twitter shortly after the strike began. The group has since denied carrying out the attack.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton downplayed those emails.

"Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence," Clinton said. "And I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be."

She suggested those producing the emails were "cherrypicking" documentation, as the White House noted the organization reportedly had denied responsibility in other settings.

"I think within a few hours that organization itself claimed that it had not been responsible. Neither should be taken as fact," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said.

But the group is a prime suspect. Indeed, one suspect in custody in Tunisia is a member of Ansar al-Sharia, one lawmaker told Fox News.

Three Republican senators, in a letter Wednesday to the White House, said they were "disturbed" by the latest email revelations, claiming it "adds to the confusion" about what the administration knew of the attacks.

"In television interviews nearly a week after the events in Benghazi, you yourself even refused to describe it as a terrorist attack, instead emphasizing the role played by a hateful video. This concerted misrepresentation of the facts of the case -- facts that, it appears, you and your administration possessed almost as soon as the attack began -- is why so many of our constituents are demanding a fuller explanation of why your administration responded as it did," wrote Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; John McCain, R-Ariz.; and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. They called on the president to "address the American people directly" on what happened.

Though the emails, obtained by Fox News on Tuesday, are just one piece of the puzzle, they reveal some of the most detailed information yet about what officials were saying to each other in the initial hours after the attack. And they again raise questions about why Rice, apparently based on intelligence assessments, would claim five days after the attack that it was a "spontaneous" reaction to protests over an anti-Islam film.

The emails obtained by Fox News were sent by the State Department to a variety of national security platforms, whose addresses have been redacted, including the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence.

Fox News was told that an estimated 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. People who received these emails work directly under the nation's top national security, military and diplomatic officials, Fox News was told.

The timestamps on the emails are all Eastern Time and often include the subheading SBU, which is shorthand for "Sensitive But Unclassified."

The third email came at 6:07 p.m. ET and was sent to a different email list but still includes the White House Situation Room address and a subject line of "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU)."

"Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli," the email reads.

Earlier emails did not go into who might have been responsible for the attack.

The first email indicates that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and other personnel were "in the compound safe haven." Officials later discovered that Stevens and three other Americans had died in the attack.

The first email was sent at 4:05 p.m. ET with the subject line: "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack (SBU)."

"The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack," the email reads. "Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.

"The operations Center will provide updates as available."

The second email came at 4:54 p.m. ET, with a subject line: "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi (SBU)"

"Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site attempting to locate COM personnel."

An additional State Department email obtained Wednesday by Fox News updated officials with accounts that the “shelter” location had later come under attack.

The email, sent at 11:57 p.m. ET, reported that the “current shelter location for COM personnel in Benghazi is under attack by mortar fire. There are reports of injuries to COM staff."

So...what you're saying is, it wasnt a youtube video that was a result of the attack?

I'll just leave this here:

State Department statement on 9/11:

And two weeks later at the United Nations, Obama stated:

So, the question is, why would they state it was a youtube video when it was clearly a terrorist attack? Why blame an American made youtube video for the attack? I dont understand why that would be the basis for their blame. Maybe someone could explain that.

You do know that there were non-terrorist backed "riots" going on through out the world, including Tripoli, Libya right? Maybe, just maybe he was referring to those incidents, not the Benghazi attack.

There was evidence from the beginning it was a terrorist attack. There was no evidence ever that it was a protest. Yet, the White House created the imaginary link of a Mulim protest over a video not seen and pushed it hard for two weeks.

Obama went beyond lying he was pushing his entire administration to decieve the world by blaming Libyan Muslims and scape goating a film maker. How is this not playing politics?

This morning the news was claiming speculation and that all the reports and facts will come out...........weeks after the election

The mainstream media will throw up a firewall for Obama with two goals in mind.

One of course, will be to allow Obama a chance to win the election. If the American people find out their president was willing to let Americans die as he sat and watched it on a big screen there in the situation room, all to protect his spun fantasy that he had killed Osama and all of terrorism at the same time...

The second goal will be to allow Obama to construct a wall of plausable deniability to insulate himself from impeachment and prison.

One of course, will be to allow Obama a chance to win the election. If the American people find out their president was willing to let Americans die as he sat and watched it on a big screen there in the situation room, all to protect his spun fantasy that he had killed Osama and all of terrorism at the same time...

Given the facts I can't reach any other conclusion then the one you state above.

There was evidence from the beginning it was a terrorist attack. There was no evidence ever that it was a protest. Yet, the White House created the imaginary link of a Mulim protest over a video not seen and pushed it hard for two weeks.

Obama went beyond lying he was pushing his entire administration to decieve the world by blaming Libyan Muslims and scape goating a film maker. How is this not playing politics?

Plus NO MENTION of the email from Amb. Stevens 4 hours before the attack that there was not enough security !

Why else did every one of our allies close their consulates yet we keep ours open ?

Only the liberal media taking one for Obama and is going to wait until after the elections to run with it.

It's up to the American people to get the word out to all who vote. It's a hypocrisy of the liberal media, it's Un-American of our POTUS & the government to not act, respond quickly and to tell the truth on what happened.

Here is some even more damaging info on the WH and how Hillary did make an order to beef up security but Obama or should I say Valerie Jarrett refused. Bill is livid that Hillary won't expose Obama now but rather she wants to wait for the Congressional Hearings in order to look more Presidential for her run in 2016 and eventually be exonerated but Bill say's she will be permanently stained if she doesn't do it now.

Here is one of the best videos I've seen that puts all the incompetence, lies, and cover-up together. Of course the libs will complain that it is FoxNews but they are the only ones covering it, for the most part. Much of the rest of the media don't want to hurt Obama's election chances. It's no surprise, they wouldn't investigate who he really was during the last election either. We've all paid dearly for that since then too.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered additional security for the U.S. mission in Benghazi ahead of the terrorist attack but the orders were never carried out, according to “legal counsel” to Clinton who spoke to best-selling author Ed Klein. Those same sources also say former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.

Appearing on TheBlazeTV’s “Wilkow!” on Wednesday night, Klein told host Andrew Wilkow that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been having “big fights” for “two or three weeks” about the issue, according to his two sources on Clinton’s legal counsel. While Bill Clinton wishes his wife would “exonerate” herself by releasing the documents that show she wasn’t at fault for the tragic security failure in Libya, the secretary of state refuses to do so because she doesn’t want to be viewed as a traitor to the Democratic party.

On Glenn Beck’s radio show earlier on Wednesday, Klein said his information comes from two “very good” sources.

Wilkow pointed out the obvious, that the Obamas and the Clintons have a “very behind the scenes, tense relationship” — to put it lightly.

He then asked Klein whether he thought Clinton would resign over the Libya scandal and expose the truth.

“No,” the author said immediately. “I can’t imagine that she would resign. It would bring down the entire administration. [Obama] would lose the election and she would be essentially blamed by the left-wing base of the party.”

“She will not be tarred with the blame for bringing down this administration,” Klein added.

Watch the segment via TheBlazeTV below:
In an exclusive interview with TheBlaze, Klein confirmed that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been engaging in “heated discussions” where the former president has urged his wife to “release the documents that would exonerate her.” He reiterated that Clinton has refused to do so because she fears she would look like a “Judas,” or a traitor, in the administration and it might hurt her chances for a presidential nomination in 2016.

If the claims turn out to be true and Clinton did suggest more security be sent to Benghazi, it is appropriate to ask: why didn’t it happen?

Klein said Clinton’s request for beefed up security would have to go through CIA special ops and or the Pentagon.

“But none of that would happen with the National Security advisor to the president of the United States Tom Donnellan going to the president and saying, ‘We want to send reinforcements to Libya because our ambassador is in jeopardy,’” Klein explained.

Ultimately, he indicated the ultimate authority would have been President Obama.

Wilkow and Klein also discussed what role Obama’s closest advisor, Valerie Jarrett, played in the Benghazi cover-up.

By Obama’s own admission, Klein said, the president never makes a big decision without first consulting with Jarrett.

“We have to assume that Valerie Jarrett, who is also by the way hooked into the Chicago campaign…that she was part of this cover-up in the White House.”

He continued: “The CIA got cables, the Department of Defense got cables, the NSA got cables during the attack on Benghazi, in addition to the emails that have since been made public. We know that there are cables that we haven’t seen yet, confirming the State Department cables that this was an al-Qaeda linked attack.”

These new revelations, following Tuesday night’s explosive report that 300 to 400 national security officials received emails detailing the Benghazi terrorist attack as it was happening, raise fresh questions about the truth behind the Benghazi attack.

The emails revealed that the Libyan radical Islamic group Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack just two hours after it began. White House officials told CBS News that an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Libya, providing Washington with a live feed to the chaos that unfolded.

To read the full emails, click here.
“I said to you last night, and I think I stand corrected, that it seemed like Obama out-Clintoned the Clintons,” Wilkow said. “But Clinton seems to have gone along with all of this because he knew that Hillary would be exonerated in the end.”